齐鲁学刊

作为《论语》诠释中仅存的两部汉魏古注，郑玄的《论语注》与何晏的《论语集解》不仅在文本流传和诠释正统上存在博弈，也体现出两种不同的经典诠释范式。通过反思《论语集解》的创作背景可知，作为官方授意完成的注本，它体现了曹魏对于《论语》这部经典的特别重视。具体对比二家注本不难发现，何晏通过“有不安者，颇为改易”的体例实际表达了对以郑玄为中心的汉代经学解释传统的诸多不满。“郑何之争”的根本区别在于经典解释的不同视野：是将《论语》置于经学中，还是将《论语》学视作一门相对独立的学问。郑玄和何晏在经典诠释上的不同，既反映了汉末和魏初不同的学术语境，也指示了对待学术传统的两条“话语”进路：使用传统的语言与传统对话、解决学术传统的问题，抑或是将解释传统视作面向当代的文本。

Within the exegetical history of The Analects, only two ancient commentaries from the Han and Wei periods have survived: Zheng Xuan's Lunyu Zhu and He Yan's Lunyu Jijie. These two texts not only represent a contest over textual transmission and hermeneutical orthodoxy but also embody two distinct paradigms of classical interpretation. A critical reflection on the intellectual and political context of the collected explanations reveals that He Yan's work, produced under official auspices, exemplifies the special significance attributed to The Analects by the Wei Dynasty. A close comparison of the two commentaries shows that He Yan, through the editorial principle of “where there is dissatisfaction, some revisions are made”, expressed notable dissatisfaction with the Han Dynasty exegetical tradition centered around Zheng Xuan. At the heart of the “Controversy between Zheng and He” lies a fundamental divergence in interpretive vision: whether to situate The Analects within the broader framework of Jingxue(classical studies), or to treat the study of The Analects scholarship as a relatively independent field. The interpretive differences between Zheng Xuan and He Yan reflect not only the contrasting academic contexts of the late Han and early Wei Dynasties, but also point to two divergent discursive approaches to scholarly tradition: one that engages with the tradition using its own language to address inherited problems, and another that treats the interpretive tradition as a text oriented toward contemporary concerns.